Towards network-on-chip agreement protocols

Demands for functionality enhancements, cost reductions and power savings clearly suggest the introduction of multiand many-core platforms in real-time embedded systems. However, when compared to uni-core platforms, the manycores experience additional problems, namely the lack of scalable coherence mechanisms and the necessity to perform migrations. These problems have to be addressed before such systems can be considered for integration into the realtime embedded domain. We have devised several agreement protocols which solve some of the aforementioned issues. The protocols allow the applications to plan and organise their future executions both temporally and spatially (i.e. when and where the next job will be executed). Decisions can be driven by several factors, e.g. load balancing, energy savings and thermal issues. All presented protocols are analytically described, with the particular emphasis on their respective real-time behaviours and worst-case performance. The underlying assumptions are based on the multi-kernel model and the message-passing paradigm, which constitutes the communication between the interacting instances.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.